cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:24:59 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: Phil Jones , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" Dear Dave, many thanks for your emails. Regarding the five possible exemptions: (1) I'm certainly happy if Jonathan Colam supports the original two exemptions (the confidentiality and the time limit) in his judgement. (2) Of the possible three new ones, I think the exemption s.36 that disclosure would inhibit free and frank exchange of views etc. really matches very well how I feel about the whole issue! This (plus the confidentiality) seem to be the strongest arguments. (3) Exemption s.40 about whether the material contains personal information seems (from my relative ignorance of these matters!) to be difficult to support while at the same time relying on the time limit exemption -- I thought that the time spent checking all the material for such personal info and redacting it was a major component in exceeding the 18 hour limit. If it is redacted, then surely what's left is no longer personal? Unless people's opinions on certain science matters can be considered "personal"? Anyway, I'll leave this one to the FOIA specialists! (4) The possibility of following the Met Office's lead and claiming that UEA has no interest in the material and therefore doesn't actually "hold" it, seems difficult to argue. I agree with Phil's comments about the evidence against making this argument. To answer your direct question to us, "What interest does UEA/CRU have in the IPCC correspondence and work that you are doing?" I would say it has great interest in the outcome of the correspondence and work. Does this mean that it has an interest in how we got there? Well I certainly did not have to get any formal UEA approval for, or oversight of, what I was doing/writing, so perhaps you could argue that my actions (and hence correspondence etc.) were not formally of interest to UEA, even though UEA are keen to take credit for the outcome. However, it is hard to win a public argument along these lines, even if it could be won legally! So, my feeling is to steer clear of this. But again, I'm happy to leave it to FOIA specialists. Thanks again, Tim At 10:54 11/07/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > Dave et al, > One minor comment on the letter, then some thoughts on the > stance the Met Office might be or are taking. > First, there is an extra 'be' on the 6th line of the para > beginning 'Further,..' > > Now the issue of the specific functions of the Met Office. This argument > would also apply to UEA and to CRU/ENV, probably more so, as UEA > is more independent (of government) than the Met Office. I say this as DEFRA > fund the Met Office to the tune of about £18M per year. I am on the Hadley > Centre's Scientific Review Group and have reviewed the DEFRA > proposal. Throughout > the documents I get for the annual Review Group meetings and in > the proposal, there is a constant thread of how the work they are doing is > essential for IPCC. How this works though is that their scientists > (just like us) > write papers for the peer-review literature, and these get > referred to in the > IPCC Reports. DEFRA expects that their scientists will be involved in the > IPCC Chapter writing. DEFRA has also funded the Met Office to run the > Technical Support Unit of Working Group 2 of IPCC. > > So, although IPCC work may not be a specific function of the Met Office, > it is very much expected by DEFRA that they are heavily involved in IPCC. > The Met Office and its Hadley Centre are happy to accept the kudos > IPCC gets - especially the Nobel Peace Prize award in 2007 for IPCC itself. > At least two people from the Met Office were at the award ceremony in Oslo > - and only 25 in total were allowed to go. > > If the Met Office can or are using this argument, then UEA could as well. > Whether we should is another matter. Individual scientists at UEA are free > to get involved in IPCC writing teams, and from the VC downwards (through > the Dean of Science and the Head of School in ENV) would expect us > to get involved. It is not written in any job description, but it is one of > the unwritten expected things academics ought to do. Keith and I use > the involvement when we write letters each to the ENV promotion > committee to get a pay increment, as I expect all the others in ENV > who have been involved in IPCC do. UEA also takes the kudos from the > report coming out and many in ENV have nice certificates recording the > Nobel Peace prize award last year. Involvement in IPCC and the Nobel > Peace Prize features strongly in the ENV Annual Report. Like the > Met Office we also use the IPCC involvement when writing proposals. > > We're not paid to do IPCC, just like the Met Office scientists. We're > paid expenses (by DEFRA) to go to the meetings and write the reports. > Keith and I did much of this at weekends and evenings, but much also > during work time and we used UEA resources to print out drafts. The work > took time and we are paid by UEA, so UEA did subsidize us to do it. > > I have to admit that I like the argument, but would appreciate Michael's > views and also Jonathan's as to whether we should. It might be worth > discussing it with the Dean of Science of the HoS in ENV, as it could > be construed by many to be a very odd argument to make. It > certainly would close > the door on this request, and set a precedent for any further requests when > the next IPCC report comes along in 5-6 years time. Holland's > requests are certainly > different from those that came last year. > > If we do use this argument, then it ought to go where you say - after > the re-assertion. > > A quick look at the Climate Audit web site would indicate that > the Met Office > have yet to respond in this way, but they may not have used such clear > language (the blue) in your email. If we both respond in this way, CA will > claim we have colluded! > > A final point. It is likely that a number of people in ENV will > become involved > in IPCC next time. I wouldn't want any disclosure to jeopardize > future involvement, > if others who are involved in IPCC future think working with UEA people > could be a liability. This is sort of covered in your final > principal paragraph. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:02 10/07/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, >>A copy of what was sent to Jonathan. Please note that the opinion >>from the Met Office quoted below is subject to lawyer-client >>privilege and should not be shared outside the group that has now seen it. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >>______________________________________________ >>From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM >>To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) >>Subject: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal >>resolution draft >>Importance: High >> >>Jonathan, >>A draft response for your review and comment. I have been in >>contact with the ICO who are of the opinion that, if we feel that >>there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the first review of the >>request, they should be raised at this stage. >> >>I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names >>of correspondents are redacted, there is enough information in >>what's left to reveal the identity of individuals. If what is left >>is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is whether what >>is left qualifies as personal data…. >> >>Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the >>disclosure of this information would clearly "in the reasonable >>opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the free and frank >>provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for >>the purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice… the >>effective conduct of public affairs". This section, as I read it, >>does not limit the provision of advice or exchange of views to >>inside an organisation. I have been in touch with Lucy to >>determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' >>(i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. >> >>There is an additional argument that we might wish to make. I have >>been in touch with the Met Office that have received a similar >>request. They have been in touch with the ICO and are making the >>argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them at >>all! The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the >>ICO indicates that information in which the institution has no >>interest but physically possesses, is not 'held' by them for the >>purposes of the Act. Guidance states: >> >>"In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest >>in this information and will make disclosure decisions. This is >>because although >> >>ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority >>with whom the information has been deposited effectively controls >>the information and holds it in its own right. It will therefore be >>difficult to argue that the information is merely held on behalf of >>another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the >>public authority itself." >> >>And >> >>"There will be cases where such information is simply held on >>behalf of a third party, for example for preservation or security >>purposes. Perhaps the public >> >>authority may be holding the information as part of a service >>(whether for gain or otherwise) to the depositor. Although this >>information is in the possession of a public authority, it does not >>fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no >>interest in it." >> >>And finally in regards personal emails in general >> >>"In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in >>the workplace would not be held by the authority as it has no >>interest in them. It will be a >> >>question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold >>them, dependent on the level of access and control it has over the >>e mail system and >> >>on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception >>rather than the rule that the public authority does hold them." >> >>I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that >>sets out their argument along these lines; and further an assertion >>that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts of their particular >>case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by them). To >>quote the internal briefing note >> >>"...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect >>of the specific functions of the Met Office. It was aligned with >>them but not a function of the Met Office. The whole purpose of >>the IPCC is that it is independent and objective." >> >> The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was >> in a pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative >> of the Met Office and the IPCC work was not Met Office work. What >> it comes down to is our corporate interest in this IPCC >> correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by >> us. I have emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this >> .. .but your feeling? >> >>Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after >>our re-assertion of our primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO >>does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we would need to >>have a position on it's disclosure. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >><> >>____________________________ >>David Palmer >>Information Policy Officer >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, England >>NR4 7TJ > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm